Michele Berry, who's representing Widmer, asked the court to take the case because it presented an opportunity for justices to clarify how specific a search warrant must be to seize fixtures that can be considered part of a home itself.

She argued that the 12th District Court of Appeals, in rejecting an earlier appeal, had become the first court to rule that a search warrant is not needed to seize part of a home or real property.

Police removed the bathtub where Widmer's wife, Sarah Widmer, drowned in August 2008 to test for latent fingerprints.

Berry also asked the court to clarify the admissibility of "debunked" scientific evidence presented as expert testimony. The attorney argued that a prosecution witness admitted during his testimony that there was no reliable scientific method to prove that a particular print was, in fact, made by a male forearm.

Widmer was convicted in February 2011 following a third murder trial and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. He was previously convicted of murder in 2009, but that conviction was overturned due to juror misconduct, and a second trial ended in a mistrial in 2010 when jurors could not reach a verdict.

Berry claimed that the verdict violated Widmer's constitutional rights because it was based on insufficient evidence.

Prosecutors claimed Widmer had forcibly drowned his wife and then altered the crime scene in the couple's bathroom, and investigators testified that streak marks inside the bathtub and impressions found along the top edge supported their theory.

Berry argued in her earlier appeal that investigators did not have the right to remove the bathtub from the home because it was not listed on the search warrant. The tub was dusted for fingerprints and brought into the courtroom to show to the jury at various points during Widmer's trials.

She argued that Widmer's attorneys during the third trial, who also represented him during the second trial, offered ineffective counsel because they failed to ask the presiding judge to suppress the bathtub as evidence.

Berry also argued that Widmer's rights were violated because Judge Neal Bronson would not allow defense attorneys to cross examine the lead detective in the case about false claims he'd made on his resume and his qualifications for his job.